Man-made Logic

Ahnimus

We've had plenty of debates on this forum about the nature of the universe. There are surprisingly a lot of atheists on this board, but still an overwhelming number of theists. The typical debates ends with the theist's argument "We cannot understand God with man-made logic."

Instead of stating again the overstated rebuttle "that's just a cop-out". I intend to prove through theism that logic is not manufactured by men.

Let us first define the terms "Man-made" and "God-given"

Man-made
Made by humans rather than occurring in nature; synthetic: man-made fibers; a manmade lake.

God-given
Though I have found no source online for the definition of this term. I feel it is fairly straight forward. A "God-given" right as it's called is the moral rights to which we as a culture acknowledge en-masse. Whereas a "God-given" ability is typically considered a talent or an innate ability. An ability we are born with.

Logic is an innate ability, for without logic innately instilled in us we would only react based on hardcoded behaviors. The evidence that newborns are logical beings is undeniable. In-fact, newborns experience very little in terms of emotions or feelings. The majority of their time is spent discovering the logical system of reality and recognizing logical patterns. Logic is by no means something we have created, rather an innate ability, and perhaps the only innate mental power we possess to discover our surroundings. It is by definition of theism a God-given ability.

Discuss

Scubascott

Ahnimus wrote:

Logic is an innate ability, for without logic innately instilled in us we would only react based on hardcoded behaviors. The evidence that newborns are logical beings is undeniable. In-fact, newborns experience very little in terms of emotions or feelings. The majority of their time is spent discovering the logical system of reality and recognizing logical patterns. Logic is by no means something we have created, rather an innate ability, and perhaps the only innate mental power we possess to discover our surroundings. It is by definition of theism a God-given ability.

Discuss

I think it becomes very difficult to use logic to argue for or against the existence of god if you decide from the outset that logic is a god-given ability. . .

Ahnimus

Scubascott wrote:

I think it becomes very difficult to use logic to argue for or against the existence of god if you decide from the outset that logic is a god-given ability. . .

I don't think it is, I think it's an evolution-given ability. But in order to refute the claim that it's a man-made thing, I need to use theist's terms. Or at least I find it's easier to talk to religious people using their terms, or terms they are familiar with. Obviously not many will know what a neonate is, or what tabula rasa means. Because they've probably never opened up a science book.

Scubascott

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't think it is, I think it's an evolution-given ability. But in order to refute the claim that it's a man-made thing, I need to use theist's terms. Or at least I find it's easier to talk to religious people using their terms, or terms they are familiar with. Obviously not many will know what a neonate is, or what tabula rasa means. Because they've probably never opened up a science book.

I had to google tabula rasa.

Ahnimus

Scubascott wrote:

I had to google tabula rasa.

Eek, it's hard to find info on it. It's the theory that the mind is a "blank slate" until it's environment influences it. It's the most accepted theory in the study of the mind. The other theories are Original Sin, which is the Christian view taken from Psalm 51:5. Which implies that we are all born with the desire to sin and we need religion to teach us otherwise. In opposition to Original Sin there is the theory of Innate Goodness which assumes that all children are born free of sin, and rather an innate desire to do Good.

Personally I go with tabula rasa, because the other theories are just ridiculous, IMO.

Ahnimus

Here is an informative illustration of human adolescent brain development.
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2006/0223/20060223_025751_Juvenile_Teen-brain-develop.gif

Last Exodus

Ahnimus wrote:

Here is an informative illustration of human adolescent brain development.
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2006/0223/20060223_025751_Juvenile_Teen-brain-develop.gif

Mine must still be yellow then...all that weed ya know

Last Exodus

Ahnimus wrote:

Eek, it's hard to find info on it. It's the theory that the mind is a "blank slate" until it's environment influences it. It's the most accepted theory in the study of the mind. The other theories are Original Sin, which is the Christian view taken from Psalm 51:5. Which implies that we are all born with the desire to sin and we need religion to teach us otherwise. In opposition to Original Sin there is the theory of Innate Goodness which assumes that all children are born free of sin, and rather an innate desire to do Good.

Personally I go with tabula rasa, because the other theories are just ridiculous, IMO.

Maybe yes on morality. Good and evil are far too simplistic. Morality is taught. But the human brain and body are ruled by chemicals. A little too much of one, a little less of another really is what determines behavior.

Ahnimus

Last Exodus wrote:

Mine must still be yellow then...all that weed ya know

THC doesn't retard brain development like that. If your mother smoked weed while you were in the prenatal stages, then it may have caused low birth-weight, but doubt it would affect your brain development.

Although, if you don't use your brain, you will lack functionality.

Ahnimus

Last Exodus wrote:

Maybe yes on morality. Good and evil are far too simplistic. Morality is taught. But the human brain and body are ruled by chemicals. A little too much of one, a little less of another really is what determines behavior.

While I agree, I think that's a bit oversimplified. There is significant evidence suggesting that while our thoughts are products of chemicals, our chemicals are also guided by our thoughts. It's the kind of thing, like, if you eat chocolate all the time, you get to crave it more often. Except in terms of thoughts, it's a bit more complicated, but that's basically it. Like, in terms of Cognitive Dissonance, you have two opposing thoughts, and in those circumstances the "winner" is usually the most desirable and ultimately strengthens the associated chemical bond and neural engrams.

Or when you get into discussing talents. Most things like Michael Jordon's ability to play basketball, is referred to as talent, but it's really a skill. Unless by talent, skill is meant. But talent to me, refers to an innate ability, that can be possible with the presence of neurological disorders like ADHD. A person with ADHD may have a "talent" for hands-on learning. But in those terms, a talent is a bad thing, because it comes from a disorder which impedes some other ability, in this case, the ability to concentrate.

So, i find it's just easier to assume for all intents and purposes that the newborns mind is blank and subject to influence. Unless the child's behavior suggests otherwise, as is the case with ADHD or something like Aphasia. But I think a newborn's innocence has been mistaken for Innate Goodness and their Curiosity for Original Sin.

Last Exodus

Ahnimus wrote:

While I agree, I think that's a bit oversimplified. There is significant evidence suggesting that while our thoughts are products of chemicals, our chemicals are also guided by our thoughts. It's the kind of thing, like, if you eat chocolate all the time, you get to crave it more often. Except in terms of thoughts, it's a bit more complicated, but that's basically it. Like, in terms of Cognitive Dissonance, you have two opposing thoughts, and in those circumstances the "winner" is usually the most desirable and ultimately strengthens the associated chemical bond and neural engrams.

Or when you get into discussing talents. Most things like Michael Jordon's ability to play basketball, is referred to as talent, but it's really a skill. Unless by talent, skill is meant. But talent to me, refers to an innate ability, that can be possible with the presence of neurological disorders like ADHD. A person with ADHD may have a "talent" for hands-on learning. But in those terms, a talent is a bad thing, because it comes from a disorder which impedes some other ability, in this case, the ability to concentrate.

So, i find it's just easier to assume for all intents and purposes that the newborns mind is blank and subject to influence. Unless the child's behavior suggests otherwise, as is the case with ADHD or something like Aphasia. But I think a newborn's innocence has been mistaken for Innate Goodness and their Curiosity for Original Sin.

how do you account for addiction then? certainly that has a pre-determined genetic and chemical component. that addiction can then lead to destructive or "bad" behavior later in life....

Ahnimus

Last Exodus wrote:

how do you account for addiction then? certainly that has a pre-determined genetic and chemical component. that addiction can then lead to destructive or "bad" behavior later in life....

All behavior is addiction. We tend to separate "habit" from "addiction" by suggesting that "addiction" is only caused by external chemical influence. However, all of our behaviors are acted because of the internal chemical rewards associated with them. Craving chocolate is no more than a whitdrawal from the chemical reaction produced by eating chocolate.

So, a newborn child isn't going to be addicted to theft or crack cocaine because it's never experienced either and in terms of crime like theft, it has to do with learned behavior. Certainly a newborn is going to carry the self-servant thought model that we all share. But that isn't exactly sinful in my opinion.

Last Exodus

Ahnimus wrote:

All behavior is addiction. We tend to separate "habit" from "addiction" by suggesting that "addiction" is only caused by external chemical influence. However, all of our behaviors are acted because of the internal chemical rewards associated with them. Craving chocolate is no more than a whitdrawal from the chemical reaction produced by eating chocolate.

So, a newborn child isn't going to be addicted to theft or crack cocaine because it's never experienced either and in terms of crime like theft, it has to do with learned behavior. Certainly a newborn is going to carry the self-servant thought model that we all share. But that isn't exactly sinful in my opinion.

point

Scubascott

Ahnimus wrote:

Eek, it's hard to find info on it. It's the theory that the mind is a "blank slate" until it's environment influences it. It's the most accepted theory in the study of the mind.

Yeah I got that bit. Didn't really get into the details though. Does this idea extand as far as things like intelligence, aptitude for music etc? I think the evidence that certain capacities of our brains are genetically pre-determined is pretty overwhelming nowdays. We may never reach those capacities if not given the oppurtunity in our lives, but there are limits imposed by our genes nonetheless.

rarghrargh-brownstar

.... :(

rarghrargh-brownstar

I just pmed you.

Ahnimus

Scubascott wrote:

Yeah I got that bit. Didn't really get into the details though. Does this idea extand as far as things like intelligence, aptitude for music etc? I think the evidence that certain capacities of our brains are genetically pre-determined is pretty overwhelming nowdays. We may never reach those capacities if not given the oppurtunity in our lives, but there are limits imposed by our genes nonetheless.

Well, the extent is kind of a belief system. But in practice it doesn't. Genetics give us a map of what we can do, but not what we will. So you are right about that. These theories are more in regards to wether or not we are born good or bad.

Ahnimus

rarghrargh-brownstar wrote:

Wow,
youre an idiot!




http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=233389

Huh?

It was delivered as a joke, you can't take a joke or what?

But for your information it was actually some Christian group that studied the effects of prayers on surgery and found the evidence to show that a patient who knows others are praying for them has a more complicated surgery. If they don't know, then there is no change. Even then the change is so small it's basically non existent.

Why do you get so upset over it? lol

A bit over-sensitive are we?

Ahnimus

rarghrargh-brownstar wrote:

Wow,
youre an idiot!

I'm sorry, but this is just amazing coming from rarghrargh-brownstar, whatever the fuck that means, and I'd like to know what you know about brain, mind and consciousness, or the effects of praying for that matter. The fact that you even pray implies to me your ignorance. Are you upset I didn't use an emoticon on my post? Because when you call someone an idiot you post a smiley face? WTF does that mean? Your too fucking smug, or you are joking, sure doesn't read like a joke. The ignorance just fucking amazes me.

Ahnimus

rarghrargh-brownstar wrote:

Wow,
youre an idiot!




http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=233389

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-03-30-prayer-study-qanda_x.htm

know1

But if you assume logic is given by God, you're still not ruling out the possibility that it is also LIMITED by God as well.

After all, individuals all have different levels of logic.